Statute of Limitations for what Rite One is?

[YoungApologist3]

OP, I’m praying for you.

Thank you very much.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

But how would one’s ancestry (or even one’s personal history) affect any of that?

If I were born Melkite Catholic, for example, but as an adult chose to change rites to become Latin Catholic, why would the fact of having been born in a different rite make it impossible for me, now being a Latin Catholic, to become a priest under the authority of the local Latin Catholic bishop?

Maybe go back to whoever gave you the form and ask about the question - it may just be a bit of a “getting-to-know-you” type of question

If you were born Melkite, and changed rites formally, it would not matter. You formally changed rites, and are no longer bound by the canons of the Melkite church. However, if you just start attending Roman Mass and don’t formally change rites, then you are still Melkite, and are bound by canon law (I think) to be ordained in the Melkite church. I think this is just a precaution so that it would be caught before you entered seminary if you belonged to a different church sui iuris without knowing it.

We need some canonists in this thread.

Canon 111 1) - assuming you were baptised Latin Catholic and at your baptism both your parents/guardians agreed to you being a member of the Latin Catholic Rite, then it doesn’t matter what rite they or any of your other relatives belong to (and it is this word that makes me think it’s a “getting-to-know-you” type question - I mean your great-aunt’s Rite surely matters not a bit!)

 

[HolySpirit]

I didn’t take it as patronizing even if it was patronizing. My response after the first one was more thinking out loud than anything else.

If a person was baptized as a Catholic, raised as a Catholic, and Confirmed as a Catholic, he is a Catholic. If a protestant can become a priest, why would you be impeded by an unknown affiliation from the “old country.”

If there is some sort of preclusion, with the shortage of Priests in America, I can’t imagine a Bishop making an issue out of this unless there was some uncomfortable reason they decided to deny your application. Just remember that God does not make mistakes when calling a man into religious life. He merely asks that you walk through the door he has opened for you.

 

[YoungApologist3]

Canon 111 1) - assuming you were baptised Latin Catholic and at your baptism both your parents/guardians agreed to you being a member of the Latin Catholic Rite, then it doesn’t matter what rite they or any of your other relatives belong to (and it is this word that makes me think it’s a “getting-to-know-you” type question - I mean your great-aunt’s Rite surely matters not a bit!)

Huh. Problem solved. (Unless both of your parents were Eastern Catholics, and neither of them, for some reason, knew. I don’t see that happening.)

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Canon 111 1) - assuming you were baptised Latin Catholic and at your baptism both your parents/guardians agreed to you being a member of the Latin Catholic Rite, then it doesn’t matter what rite they or any of your other relatives belong to (and it is this word that makes me think it’s a “getting-to-know-you” type question - I mean your great-aunt’s Rite surely matters not a bit!)

Huh. Problem solved. (Unless both of your parents were Eastern Catholics, and neither of them, for some reason, knew. I don’t see that happening.)

Even if they knew, if their intent was for YOU to be Latin Catholic it would seem problem solved there as well.

 

[YoungApologist3]

I didn’t take it as patronizing even if it was patronizing.

It wasn’t, and I’m glad.

If a person was baptized as a Catholic, raised as a Catholic, and Confirmed as a Catholic, he is a Catholic. If a protestant can become a priest, why would you be impeded by an unknown affiliation from the “old country.”

I’m not as concerned with the ordination part as with family marriages. I think I’m just going to stop thinking about this, because my brain is about to explode. Too many laws are interacting here.

 

[HolySpirit]

Just wait until you get to the seminary.

 

[LilyM]

I’m not as concerned with the ordination part as with family marriages. I think I’m just going to stop thinking about this, because my brain is about to explode. Too many laws are interacting here.

No more or less so than secular law, seems to me (speaking as a secular lawyer).

 

[YoungApologist3]

No more or less so than secular law, seems to me (speaking as a secular lawyer).

I’ve thought a little about asking my bishop (way down the line) to allow me to get doctorates in civil and canon law (which would give me that “J.U.D.” after my name). Remind me in 8 years not to do that.

 

[MikeInVA]

I’m a little dense, but it seems we’re confusing rites within the Catholic Church with Eastern Orthodox (not in communion with the Bishop of Rome) churches. I know a Byzantine Catholic priest who taught religion at our Catholic high school, and had faculties to celebrate the Latin rite. I also saw in my diocese where a diocesan priest was assigned to an Eastern Catholic parish.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

No more or less so than secular law, seems to me (speaking as a secular lawyer).

I’ve thought a little about asking my bishop (way down the line) to allow me to get doctorates in civil and canon law (which would give me that “J.U.D.” after my name). Remind me in 8 years not to do that.

It’s not as bad as all that - and is good exercise for the old mental muscles … plus you’ll be older and wiser in 8 years

 

[FrDavid96]

eagerbeaver:

remember your Rite is that to which your father belonged.

I don’t understand this. If my dad was Byzantine Catholic and my mom was Roman, and they raised me in a Roman Catholic church (sacraments), are you saying that I would actually be a Byzantine not Roman Catholic?

(I’m not trying to start an argument, I just have never heard this. For the record, both my parents were Roman Catholic!)

Yes. That’s exactly how it works.

Not only is there an absence of a limitation, but the law very specifically says that no matter how long (or how many generations) one might practice in a different ritual Church sui iuris, that does not cause a change in the person’s status.

Also, note that what matters here is the Church, and not the Rite. The Byzantine Rite comprises several Churches. A person who moves from Melkite to Ukrainian would be changing Churches sui iuris, but staying within the same Byzantine Rite.

 

[FrDavid96]

Why would it make any difference what background you are for entering the seminary? If you are planning to be a diocesan priest, it is a matter solely for the bishop to decide. I am pretty sure that I have talked to a seminarian who has orthodox ancestry. (Although he was a religious vocation.)

A protestant who was married can enter the seminary so long as they convert to Catholicism.

It matters considerably.

A Latin bishop cannot ordain a member of an Eastern Church (except in the now extremely rare case where that Latin bishop has jurisdiction over the Eastern Catholics living in his diocese—again, extremely rare).

The Latin bishop cannot just “decide” this. He is bound by canon law.

 

[YoungApologist3]

Thank you for your response, Father.

A Latin bishop cannot ordain a member of an Eastern Church (except in the now extremely rare case where that Latin bishop has jurisdiction over the Eastern Catholics living in his diocese—again, extremely rare).

By this, do you mean literally “cannot,” or “must not?” Does the validity of the sacrament depend on the rite of the man?

 

[FrDavid96]

I think the matter at hand is the fact that I would need to be under the authority of the local ordinary of my own church sui iuris. I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure bi-ritual priests are still under the authority of just one bishop.

The term “bi-ritual” priest is a misnomer. There is no such thing.

A priest (deacon or even bishop or layman) can only be a member of one Church sui iuris, and whatever Rite that Church follows.

A cleric may have special faculties to function as a cleric of another Rite for either a temporary period (1 year, 5 years, etc.) or for the rest of his life (properly called an “accommodation”).

Also, a cleric can only be incardinated in one diocese (or religious order). One who has ritual faculties is not under the authority of any bishop of the ‘other’ Rite except obviously during the moments when he’s actually serving as a cleric within the territory of that ‘other’ Rite.

In either case, he remains a member of his own Church sui iuris. He is not “bi-ritual” because the 2 designations are not equal to each other. Membership is permanent, while faculties are secondary and temporary.

 

[YoungApologist3]

Would it actually be possible for this to happen if only one father’s father’s… father did not tell his family that he belonged to x church sui iuris? Wouldn’t it actually require both my great-great-…grandparents on both my parents’ sides to not tell their child that they belonged to a different church sui iuris, (edit: actually, I think it would take an entire generation) since, if even one parent belonged to the Roman church, if both my parents agreed that I would belong to the Roman church, then I would belong to the Roman church?

 

[FrDavid96]

YoungApologist3:

I think the matter at hand is the fact that I would need to be under the authority of the local ordinary of my own church sui iuris. I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure bi-ritual priests are still under the authority of just one bishop.

But how would one’s ancestry (or even one’s personal history) affect any of that?

If I were born Melkite Catholic, for example, but as an adult chose to change rites to become Latin Catholic, why would the fact of me, let alone any of my ancestors, having been born in a different rite make it impossible for me, now being a Latin Catholic, to become a priest under the authority of the local Latin Catholic bishop? Am I not, as a Latin Catholic layperson, equally subject to the authority of my own bishop and no other once I convert?

Maybe go back to whoever gave you the form and ask about the question - it may just be a bit of a “getting-to-know-you” type of question.

If such a change occurs (Melkite to Latin) it MUST be duly recorded in the person’s baptismal register. If it’s not done formally, then as far as the Church is concerned, it did not happen.

An individual cannot simply choose to change Churches and do it by attending that other Church. If the requirements of the law are not met (that is, if it isn’t done formally) then it just doesn’t happen.

 

[FrDavid96]

This is just third hand from the peanut gallery. I believe that Father Mitch Pacwa said that he became ordained as a Maronite Priest because he developed an interest in their heritage while he was studying Aramaic. I’ve heard that he does occasionally perform Maronite services because he appreciates their sanctity and beauty.

No, he wasn’t “ordained” as a Maronite.

There’s only one priestly (presbyteral) ordination. He was ordained a priest and that ordination occurred in the Latin Rite.

After ordination he requested faculties to function as a Maronite priest. That means he received a letter from the Holy See allowing him to do that; but he was certainly not ordained again.

 

[FrDavid96]

Canon 111 1) - assuming you were baptised Latin Catholic and at your baptism both your parents/guardians agreed to you being a member of the Latin Catholic Rite, then it doesn’t matter what rite they or any of your other relatives belong to (and it is this word that makes me think it’s a “getting-to-know-you” type question - I mean your great-aunt’s Rite surely matters not a bit!)

That’s true.

However, the fact that the parents want the child to be enrolled in the Latin Church must be declared by them (not implied, and not assumed, but formally declared) and must be noted in the baptismal registry at the time of the baptism.

If it’s not recorded in the baptism registry, then, as far as the Church and Canon Law are concerned, it never happened.

 

[FrDavid96]

I didn’t take it as patronizing even if it was patronizing. My response after the first one was more thinking out loud than anything else.

If a person was baptized as a Catholic, raised as a Catholic, and Confirmed as a Catholic, he is a Catholic. If a protestant can become a priest, why would you be impeded by an unknown affiliation from the “old country.”

If there is some sort of preclusion, with the shortage of Priests in America, I can’t imagine a Bishop making an issue out of this unless there was some uncomfortable reason they decided to deny your application. Just remember that God does not make mistakes when calling a man into religious life. He merely asks that you walk through the door he has opened for you.

The bishop must make an issue out of this.

He can only ordain his own subjects. If the candidate is not under his pastoral care, but is instead under the jurisdiction of an Eastern bishop, he cannot do the ordination (cannot accept him as a seminarian, cannot call him to orders, etc. etc.)